3RU7AL

Give me your definition first and why you have it. 

Yet, I take the view that there ought to be rules of war and that our entry as a nation to a war ought to be justified.  

Is this a view that is supported by and or based on the teachings of the holy scriptures?

Yes. 

You think any action requires and emotional motive.

whether or not something is claimed has no bearing on facts, they exist on their own,

FACTUAL = VERIFIED

Yes but it doesn’t = VERIFIED BY HUMANS

Only humans can make FACTUAL CLAIMS.

That doesn’t matter, you see? It’s my lack of emotion in that respect as to why my position is objective.

Maybe but how do you know those claims weren’t factual before they were verified?

terrorists have the right to seek a redress of their grievances

“what's so special about human involvement that dictates whether of not something is fact?”

Planning for the future isn't about emotion its about not being a worthless POS burden on society.

DO YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES SHOULD BE GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS?

Yes, including terrorists.

Israelite babies, maybe.

Who did "YHWH" speak to?

George Walker Bush, or so he claimed.

So I guess my question to you is, do they, or at least some of the protesters meet the bar for domestic terrorism?

You could certainly label the ones who were using unjustifiable intimidation and violence tactics against civilians, sure.

Any and all decisions based on spending money or investing it.

What made you think I took issue with your axioms?

This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate,

Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?

The answer is "I don't know." The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.

Perhaps. This is in reference to the Amalekites.

These "religious people" don't seem to have any problem with "killing" when they feel like it.

You may not believe what they believe, but they believe what they believe. And that's the point: it is not inconsistent with their beliefs that they believe man has no prerogative to kill babies, and God does for the reasons I've already mentioned.

In modern times, does "YHWH" explicitly command its followers to "kill prisoners"?

Yes: Guantanamo Bay.

In modern times, does "YHWH" explicitly command its followers to "go to war"?'

Yes: Iraq.

Perhaps a better question would be, what would someone Christian/Islamic/Judaic argue in the circumstance where a staunch Satanist (descended from a long line of Satanists) wishes to carry out an abortion?

Yet, I take the view that there ought to be rules of war and that our entry as a nation to a war ought to be justified.  

So, I'm guessing you're a staunch anti-war advocate as well?

So just for the record - are you really suggesting that war and aborting babies are comparable? 

Isn't "the law" simply "codified mob rule"?

My answer is no. 

Religious people oppose abortion in part by reason of man's not having authority over life and death unless instructed by God.

The hypocrisy is so thick here, I need a cutlass. 

emphasis that he is personally willing to put everything on the line.

You in your words attempted to mock me -

yet you demonstrate an increased ignorance of understanding logic, reason, argumentation, evidence and its purpose. I am quite surprised that you have been able to reach ANY conclusions by reasoning. 

By discounting the evidence really was the lever which caused the riots.

Yet when the atheist simply says - it is not evidence - they are lying or mistaken in their understanding of what evidence is - and what evidence is being used for. 

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this case. In this particular instance of protest, there were bombs, assault, murder, destruction of property, theft, trespassing and death threats. You had congressmen, capitol hill staffers and policemen quivering behind seats.

I do find it curious that you would not label this as terrorism. Why not?

...nsciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will con...

But defamatory labelling of people is a personal attack,

Evidence comes in various forms.  It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue". 

I like eyewitness testimony.  

but it would be up whether or not a judge or jury could be convinced of it.

Yet, I do not believe in taking the law into my own hands. I am not a vigilante and do not support vigilantes. I think those that work outside of the law - demonstrate that they are a law unto themselves and whatever their intentions are supposed to be - for good or bad - they believe they are above the law.  This goes against my view that all people are equal beneath the law.  IT is an elitist position - and should be condemned. 

- the needless murder of millions of humans every year.

He says it was in reference to them being allowed to inspect the Dominion machines. Doesn't make a lick of sense, TBH, but that's his explanation.

Incitement of insurrection is an actual crime.

Giuliani is talking about Republican officials contesting the certification.

Not according to Giuliani

I don't know why religious people are so against abortion. God had no problem killing babies.

1 Samuel 15:3   Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

Was there an argument in there?